BASHIR SAIDU, JAFARU SANI AND OTHERS: DEFECTION AS A SHOW OF PRAGMATISM AND GENUINE RECONCILIATION

By Ahmed Muhammad BG, PhD

Politics is often described as pervasive and ubiquitous because it permeates virtually every aspect of social life. It exists within society, and no individual can completely extricate himself from its influence. Society itself comprises people with different interests, opinions and value judgments, many of which may be difficult or impossible to reconcile. Politics therefore provides a medium for managing competing interests and resolving conflicts, while political parties provide a platform through which those interests can be pursued within a representative democracy.

Generally, political parties are primarily concerned with gaining and exercising political power and, in the process, mobilise people who share broadly similar interests and ideological orientations. These groups then compete with one another for political influence and, ultimately, control of government.

In Nigeria, the development of organised party politics is commonly traced to the Clifford Constitution of 1922, which facilitated the emergence of Herbert Macaulay’s Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP). Since then, numerous political parties have emerged at different points in Nigeria’s political trajectory. It is instructive to note that, unlike their counterparts in many advanced democracies, Nigeria’s political parties have continued to evolve since independence, a process that has been accompanied by shifting alliances, coalitions and frequent changes in political affiliation.

Fast-forward to September 2026. On 14 September 2026, reports of defections by prominent politicians from the African Democratic Congress (ADC) to the All Progressives Congress (APC) dominated political and social-media discussions. The defections attracted particular attention because several of the politicians involved were friends and close associates of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, the former Governor of Kaduna State, and had served in his administration.

Those reported to be part of the movement include Bashir Saidu, former Chief of Staff to El-Rufai; Jafaru Sani, a former commissioner; Abdu Kwari, a former commissioner and senator; Nasir Abdullahi Maikano, a former legislator; and other political associates and grassroots actors.

I read with considerable concern and disappointment the harsh and, in my view, unfounded criticisms circulated by some social-media commentators regarding the decision by Bashir Saidu, Jafaru Sani and others to move from the ADC to the APC. I would ordinarily have ignored such commentary, but I consider it necessary to correct claims that could create unnecessary hostility and distrust among friends and long-standing political associates.

To set the record straight, the defectors maintain that their political association with and loyalty to Mallam Nasir El-Rufai remain intact. Jafaru Sani has stated on several occasions that the group remains politically associated with El-Rufai and continues to regard itself as loyal to him. He has also expressed optimism that Governor Uba Sani could mend fences with El-Rufai, arguing that whatever differences may exist were rooted in political misunderstanding.

Despite that explanation, some critics have continued to circulate allegations which, in my view, are baseless and potentially defamatory, thereby risking unnecessary division among political associates and members of the public.

Mallam Nasir El-Rufai and several of his political associates played a significant role in building the ADC’s presence in Kaduna State. The party subsequently developed organisational structures across Kaduna State’s 23 Local Government Areas. However, the party entered a period of internal crisis following its gubernatorial primary election.

Petitions and allegations of irregularities were raised concerning the primary process, while some stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the issues were handled. The Jafaru camp, in particular, was reportedly frustrated by the political dynamics surrounding the primary, especially the participation of individuals who joined the party relatively late in the process.

Some of the critics further weakened their own argument when they claimed that the Bashir Saidu–Jafaru Sani group had left the ADC merely because it lost the primary election.

The reality, however, is more complicated.

The primary election became the subject of serious allegations of irregularities and fraud from some aspirants and stakeholders. Whatever the competing interpretations of the process, the controversy created a deep political divide within the party. To add to the tension, the political relationships among some of the aspirants deteriorated after the primary.

The political conduct that followed also raised questions about the motivations and strategy of some actors within the emerging political arrangement. According to claims surrounding a widely circulated recording, one of the political actors was alleged to have described a strategy in which El-Rufai’s political influence was being used to carry a broader political burden.

If accurately represented, such a strategy would inevitably raise questions about political trust and the nature of the relationships involved.

The situation brings to mind Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, in which Mark Antony describes Lepidus as someone who could be used to carry political burdens before being discarded when he was no longer useful.

“He shall but bear them as the ass bears gold,

To groan and sweat under the business,

Either led or driven, as we point the way;

And having brought our treasure where we will,

Then take we down his load, and turn him off,

Like to the empty ass, to shake his ears,

And graze in commons.”

Clearly, the Bashir Saidu–Jafaru Sani group, having considered its political responsibilities and its continued loyalty to El-Rufai, could not reasonably be expected to submit to a political arrangement they regarded as inconsistent with their principles.

They came to regard the political arrangement as incompatible with their principles and concluded that an earlier departure was in their best political interest. After all, democracy is ultimately about serving the wider public, and the group apparently became convinced that the political environment within the ADC in Kaduna State no longer offered the platform they expected.

Their earlier decision to join the ADC was therefore informed by political pragmatism and a belief that the party offered a viable platform for their political objectives.

Their subsequent decision to leave should therefore not automatically be interpreted as betrayal. Political pragmatism sometimes requires political actors to reassess their alliances when circumstances change.

Similarly, the group concluded that Governor Uba Sani possessed significant political experience and grassroots support and therefore represented a viable platform for their political engagement.

The decision, according to the group, was not impulsive but followed consideration of the governor’s policies, programmes and record in office.

The group’s support for Governor Uba Sani, they believe, can encourage continued engagement with his administration while creating an opportunity for genuine political reconciliation.

This is an important point.

Political realignment should not automatically be interpreted as personal betrayal. Politics is dynamic. Political relationships evolve. Circumstances change. Individuals and groups may reach different conclusions about the best platform through which they can serve their communities and pursue their political objectives.

Changing political affiliation does not necessarily erase previous relationships, friendships or political loyalties.

A person can change political parties and still respect, admire and maintain a relationship with a former political mentor. A politician can disagree with a former associate on political strategy without becoming an enemy. And political realignment can sometimes create an opportunity for reconciliation where previous disagreements have produced unnecessary division.

This is particularly important in Kaduna State, where political differences have, at various times, strained relationships among individuals who previously worked together.

The decision of Bashir Saidu, Jafaru Sani and their associates to return to the APC should therefore be understood within this broader context.

Their argument is essentially one of political pragmatism: they believe that their political objectives, their supporters and their vision for the future are better served by working within the APC and supporting Governor Uba Sani.

That decision deserves to be understood on its own terms rather than reduced to the simplistic accusation of betrayal.

It is also important to distinguish loyalty to an individual from membership of a political party.

A political associate does not have to belong to the same political party as a former mentor in order to maintain respect or loyalty towards that individual. Political history provides numerous examples of politicians who have moved between parties while maintaining personal relationships and political friendships.

Many Nigerians who once belonged to different political parties have accepted appointments and contributed to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration without being branded betrayers. Consider Nyesom Wike, who moved from the PDP into the APC, and David Umahi, who likewise moved from the PDP to the APC.

Politics is dynamic, and individuals should be free to support or serve where they believe they can make a meaningful contribution. Changing political direction does not erase the respect, loyalty or gratitude one may have for former mentors and political associates.

What should ultimately matter is an individual’s commitment to good governance, national development and service to the Nigerian people.

Decamping is not necessarily betrayal. Rejecting political manipulation is not treachery. Choosing to align with a party or candidate who genuinely represents one’s values and community’s interests, rather than remaining within a political arrangement one considers unsuitable, is not inherently disloyalty. It can simply be democracy functioning as it should.

Changing political parties does not mean abandoning Mallam Nasir El-Rufai. There are many people who are not members of the ADC but remain staunch and committed supporters of El-Rufai. There are countless others who do not belong to any political party but remain disciples of the El-Rufai school of governance.

One can differ politically with El-Rufai and yet continue to respect or follow him in other ways. For instance, Jimi A. Lawal, one of Mallam El-Rufai’s trusted political associates, once joined the PDP while Mallam El-Rufai was in the APC, yet that political difference did not necessarily erase their relationship.

Mallam El-Rufai is neither the National Chairman of the ADC nor its presidential candidate. How, then, can disagreement with the party automatically be interpreted as disagreement with him?

If we are talking about integrity, the more important question should be whether political parties are living up to the democratic principles they proclaim.

The concerns raised about the conduct of the ADC primary in Kaduna deserve to be examined on their merits. Where credible allegations of irregularities are made, they should be addressed transparently through the appropriate party and legal mechanisms.

No political organisation should be above scrutiny.

Similarly, no politician should be condemned merely for exercising the constitutional freedom to reassess his political affiliation.

If a political party’s stated principles do not correspond with the experience of its members, politicians have a legitimate basis for reconsidering their continued participation. The decision to pursue new political engagements can therefore be understood as an attempt to find a platform that better serves their political objectives and the interests of their supporters.

Thus, the Bashir Saidu–Jafaru Sani group should not be casually labelled as betrayers simply because they have exercised their political freedom.

They should be judged by the principles guiding their political choices, their conduct in public office and their commitment to the people they seek to represent.

Nigeria’s democracy should be mature enough to accommodate political disagreement without turning every change of political affiliation into a moral indictment.

Political loyalty is valuable, but loyalty should not mean permanent political captivity.

Genuine political relationships should be capable of surviving disagreement. Political associates should be able to pursue different political paths without automatically becoming enemies. And where political differences have created division, changing political alliances can sometimes provide an opportunity for reconciliation.

That is why the decision of the Bashir Saidu–Jafaru Sani group can reasonably be viewed as an expression of pragmatism and, potentially, a step towards genuine reconciliation in Kaduna State.

The group has returned to the APC after consulting with and considering the views of its political supporters. It has also declared its intention to work towards mobilising political support for Governor Uba Sani ahead of the 2027 election.

Their stated objective is not simply to change political parties. It is to establish a new political relationship that they believe can contribute to stability, reconciliation and development in Kaduna State.

That political choice should be debated on its merits rather than condemned through personal attacks.

To those who have criticised the decision, the appropriate response is simple: political disagreement is legitimate, but political disagreement should not become an excuse for character assassination or the destruction of longstanding relationships.

The democratic process gives citizens and politicians the right to reconsider their political choices.

The right to change political affiliation is part of the freedom of political association. The right to support a different political platform is not, by itself, evidence of betrayal.

Ultimately, what matters is whether political actors use their positions to serve the people, promote good governance and contribute to the development of society.

For Bashir Saidu, Jafaru Sani and their associates, their decision represents what they believe is a pragmatic political realignment and an opportunity to rebuild bridges that have been damaged by years of political disagreement.

Whether that effort succeeds will depend not only on the individuals involved but also on the willingness of political actors across the divide to embrace dialogue, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Kaduna State has nothing to gain from permanent political hostility among people who have previously worked together.

What Kaduna needs is a political culture in which disagreement does not permanently destroy relationships, where political competition does not become personal warfare, and where reconciliation is regarded not as weakness but as a demonstration of political maturity.

The return of these political actors to the APC should therefore be seen within that broader context.

It is, at its core, a political decision rooted in pragmatism, freedom of association and the possibility of reconciliation.

Let political differences remain political.

Let personal relationships be given room to heal.

Let political actors disagree without becoming permanent enemies.

And, above all, let the interests of Kaduna State and its people remain at the centre of every political calculation.

*Ahmed Muhammad BG, PhD*